Renouf and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Renouf against a decision by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to refuse funding for a far infrared sauna as a participant support. Ms Renouf, a participant in the NDIS, suffers from scleroderma and Raynaud’s phenomenon, conditions that cause significant pain, reduced mobility, and extreme sensitivity to temperature. She sought funding for a far infrared sauna, arguing it would help manage her symptoms, particularly by improving circulation and skin pliability, and alleviating anxiety related to ulcers. The NDIA had refused funding, contending the sauna did not meet the "reasonable and necessary" criteria under the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the far infrared sauna was a reasonable and necessary support for Ms Renouf, specifically considering whether it represented value for money and was likely to be effective and beneficial, having regard to current good practice. Ms Renouf presented evidence from her treating practitioners, including her rheumatologist, who suggested the sauna had potential benefits. Conversely, the NDIA presented expert evidence from a rheumatologist who conducted a literature review and found no evidence to support the efficacy of far infrared sauna therapy for Ms Renouf's conditions, stating that current good practice did not include such a treatment.

The Tribunal found that the crucial criterion of being "effective and beneficial" under section 34(1)(d) of the NDIS Act was not met. While acknowledging Ms Renouf's subjective experience of benefit and the supportive opinions of her treating doctors, the Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not establish that the far infrared sauna was likely to be effective and beneficial, particularly when assessed against current good practice as outlined by expert medical opinion. The limited research available was considered insufficient to meet the threshold for funding from public funds, even if considered an innovative therapy. Consequently, the Tribunal did not need to consider other criteria such as value for money or whether it was most appropriately funded by the NDIS.

The Tribunal set aside the NDIA's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration. It directed that a new statement of participant supports be approved for Ms Renouf, which would include funding for a car boot opener to the value of $1,980.00, as agreed between the parties, but would not include funding for the far infrared sauna.